Officiating question (plus tactical point)

[WSUwatcher]

Some help from one of our refs, please -- on a two-shot foul, can you station players along the lane for the first shot, the one that isn't in play, and then move them out for the second shot?

If so, wouldn't it have been a good idea for WSU to set up on Hall's first FT with 7.1 seconds left just the way they always do, so that if he missed his teammates could have given him a tap of encouragement and then stepped away to avoid any accidental fouls on the potential rebound of the second FT? Or would they have been required to stay along the lane for the second shot if they were there for the first?

Also, how about the stat the ESPN guys quoted about fouling with a three point lead inside the last 10 seconds to ensure that the opponents don't get to shoot a three to tie? In a study of (I thought the announcer said 30, but an article from an NBA researcher says 32, not a surprising discrepancy -- see http://www.82games.com/lawhorn.htm) games where it was tried in the NBA, the team held its lead in 29 cases and won, a much higher proportion than for teams who didn't foul and instead allowed the potential tying shot. Maybe a larger sample would be helpful, but that seems pretty strong empirical evidence that the percentage play by far is to foul and not allow someone to launch a three. (Like Ben McLemore, Coach Hoiberg?)

[Rosewood]

The whole foul or don't foul question really comes down to coaching style and preference.

Fouling there would have been as strange as HCGM using all of his timeouts.

[WuDrWu]

We tried to foul, we wanted to foul, we intended to foul Chatman. It was, is, and always will be the right thing to do in that situation. Coaches that refuse to foul are stubborn and stupid. The % in the sampling was 17% vs 3% and the 3% was helped by a bad call on a lane violation. Foul before you give a chance to tie, PERIOD.

[rrshock]

We tried to foul, we wanted to foul, we intended to foul Chatman. It was, is, and always will be the right thing to do in that situation. Coaches that refuse to foul are stubborn and stupid. The % in the sampling was 17% vs 3% and the 3% was helped by a bad call on a lane violation. Foul before you give a chance to tie, PERIOD.

Absolutely.

[ShockerPrez]

Exhibit A: see KU vs. Iowa State.

Up by 3, foul.

[Aargh]

Here's another offiociating question. Bear in mind that Elgin was at the game. Since this officiating crew seemed to call the game with about the expected level of "homer" calls, and WSU won, do they get more Valley games?

[60Shock]

It was not under 10 seconds. The announcer repeatedly stated 7 seconds or under.

[WSUwatcher]

It was not under 10 seconds. The announcer repeatedly stated 7 seconds or under.

In the article I cited, the study from the NBA was based on events <11 seconds (again, see the link: http://www.82games.com/lawhorn.htm).

So it's possible that the announcer was talking about a different study, or that he didn't quite get it right in describing this one (which I suspect was what actually happened). In either case, here was the article's conclusion: "With time running out (final possession), and a 3-point lead, the defensive team is roughly 4 times more likely to "blow the lead" and have to play overtime if they choose to play defense, rather than foul in the waning seconds of the game." And that's based on NBA free throw shooting, which is significantly better overall than college. So there's really not much doubt about the right percentage play; it's just a question of whether a given coach has the mental flexibility and confidence to make the call --and also, whether the refs will actually call the foul attempted, as they didn't yesterday, and as they didn't when Memphis tried to foul in the championship game before Mario Chalmers got KU into overtime a few years ago.

Meanwhile, though, my officiating question got lost in the tactical discussion about fouling. So I repeat for our Shockernet refs: on a two-shot foul, can you station players along the lane for the first shot, the one that isn't in play, and then move them out for the second shot that is in play?

If so, wouldn't it have been a good idea for WSU to set up on Hall's first FT with 7.1 seconds left in exactly the same way they normally do, so the situation would have looked more familiar to Carl and also so if he missed his teammates could have given him a tap of encouragement before stepping away to avoid any accidental fouls on the potential rebound of the second FT? Or would the Shocks have been required to stay along the lane for the second shot if they were there for the first?